Few audio formats have had more controversy than MQA. What's Paul's opinion on this often misunderstood format? If you want to learn more, grab a copy of Paul's new book, The Audiophile's Guide. www.psaudio.co...
Nice to see a manufacturer who has worked with mqa being honest about it. Thank you very much for that. The mechanics side is certainly..... Questionable at best. With most evidence suggesting it has various issues. But unfortunately it's a masterclass in marketing and so there are a huge number of people who believe it.
@@EliasTheHunter are you a robot? try to use your ears, paul sells audio gear that does not support mqa what do you expect him to say? the same goes for his use of modern tubes in his amp, whoever has ears knows that paul is wrong but he will make a video and talk about science...paul represents the highest degree of bullshit in the audio world-science bullshit
Looks like MQA/Tidal got hard exposed via Golden Sound and doesn't look good for the industry 'experts' seen to be loving it on Stereophile's MQA 'Yes or No' video. How very enlightening indeed. Great to see who the real audio engineers with integrity are like PS Audio here. Well done.
Yep that video got my attention too. I mean I know controversy has surrounded mqa since it came out 5 years ago. But up till now I just ignored it and wanted to use Tidal anyways. Someone mentioned it in a comment of a review video for the Naim Uniti atom because apparently Naim thinks MQA is BS and does not license it in any of their products. I'll be honest some of it I just couldn't process all at once, but once I started to see the INTRODUCTION of NOISE and DISTORTION....I was kind of appalled. I have never personally heard an authenticated MQA file from Tidal. I've only ever gotten as high as their "HiFi" level tier. But I'm thinking once I do finally get a chance to hear it, I'm gonna want to compare DSD to it and see how they measure up against each other.
I watched it. They destroyed MQA. After it, I decided to move on to Qobuz. If Tidal offers a Flac 16/44.1kHz for a more affordable price I might switch back.
It's a cruel joke that once we got digital, with the widest dynamic range we are ever going to need, popular music reduced dynamic range to nothing. We finally can all have an Olympic sized swimming pool, and nearly all are filled with 18 inches of water.
That is the best analogy I have heard. Digital has the capability, but is limited to commercially compressed recordings that have less dynamic range that older vinyl recordings of the past. 100db of dynamic range on tap and only 20db of dynamic range used on a CD for example, if that. A recording made in 1958 with a limited dynamic range of 70db on a good day, but has 40db of dynamic range. That is why Herb Richert and myself record our own digital files from good vinyl recordings.
record companies can make different Studio mixers for different formats. this format buys people who have cheap stereo so we make this mix for them Or .This format buys those who have an expensive stereo so we make another mix for them
The balls on this guy. This is a great demonstration of how to be both a scientist and a business owner. Seek the truth, know the truth, speak the truth, but listen to your customers and build what they want.
FLAC and CDs are good enough. If you think you need 'better', DSD is an option. The most valuable part of MQA is the profit stream it creates for it's creators and licensees.
DSD Wide (8 bits) is better than 196/24 LPCM. But DSD Wide is only used in editing. DSD has many issues. You cannot edit in DSD. Only DSD Wide, or you have to convert it to LPCM. And you can't DSP DSD. Forget digital room correction. Rather, forget DSD. DSD is converted to LPCM in the DSP and then you aren't listening to a DSD file, but an LPCM or FLAC file. I'm not hating on DSD. I only think native DSD (SACD) has too low resolution and the whole editing/DSP thing. Sony Music has much of its music catalogue (masters) in DSP. Editing DSD isn't a benign process. And converting to 196/24 introduces quantization errors. Sony Music is pretty much stuck with SACD/CD. Of course, converting is to 176.4/24 is not an issue. But then the quantization errors may be introduced in your DAC, depending on clock frequency.
@John Russell Agreed. Would have been better to do HDCD format in a FLAC container. Or just mildly lossy compressed 24/96 in a FLAC container using the latest lossy codecs, for file sizes same or less than FLAC encoded Red book But for several years now, lossless FLAC Red Book or lossless FLAC 24/48 or 24/96 is no issue with the data bandwidth available to most consumers via cell or home broadband. All without the contrived license and hidden tech issues.
@John Russell As a relative layman, I'm uncomfortable commenting in detail about what I see as such a glaring issue, but it does seem to me that the unfolding 'function' of MQA just seems to be an unnecessary proprietary hurdle cloaked in mystery and its promise of balance in the ratio of compression to quality is based on manufactured necessity just to make more money. FLAC is transparent, properly lossless, and doesn't 'fold' its full quality away at the cost of audible distortion, making it clearly superior.
@@geraldford6409 Errm, it's not about consumers, it's about suppliers I think. Your phone etc might be able to handle it, but what about the streaming companies if everybody would stream at max quality. I think that is the issue.
@@titntin5178 There are some few MQA-encoded albums on Qobuz, but this is not the fault of Qobuz, this is because the label either refuses to send anything other than MQA or that they work with MQA across the board. So in these very few cases, the label is to blame. In a very recent interview with the Norwegian website audiophile.no, Qobuz confirmed that they are not pursuing MQA at all (audiophile.no/nb-no/item/2936-audiophile-intervjuer-qobuz): Audiophile.no: Is MQA a format that Qobuz will be considering? Qobuz: We have decided to stick to source audios and don’t see any reason to switch to MQA. MQA requires compatible devices, Flac works everywhere. So clearly, they themselves do not want MQA, but some labels unfortunately refuse to send anything else.
How is MQA created 1) It starts always from a digital PCM (in FLAC, WAV, AIFF, ALAC, ... any lossless container). I will call this the original PCM or MASTER (*) because this is the input of an MQA encoder. 2) They look at the sample rate 2.1) when it's 44.1/48k there were no frequencies higher then 22.05/24k recorded. NO REGION B, NO REGION C ! NO ORIGAMI AT ALL ! 2.2) when it's 88.2/96k (or more) frequencies between 22.05/24kHz and 44.1/48kHz were recorded. NO REGION C ! 2.3) when it's 176.4/192k (or more) frequencies between 44.1/48kHz and 88.2/96kHz were recorded. So only for these mqa's you have the full origami story happening. This is what? > Conclusion 1: Origami is not happening for 95% of the MQAs From Region C (for 176.4/192k MQAs or more only !) the ESTIMATED frequencies are LOSSY compressed. => LOSSY From Region B (for 88.2/96k MQAs or more only !) the ESTIMATED frequencies are LOSSLESSLY compressed => STILL LOSSY because ESTIMATES >> Conclusion 2: All Frequencies >22.05/24k are LOSSY. Then the PCM is downsampled: - 352.8 /8; 176.4 /4; 88.2 /2 => 44.1kHz; this means 7/8 or 3/4 or 1/2 samples gone - 384 /8; 192 /4; 96 /2 => 48kHz; same story there. Then the compressed lossy region B/C are written as extra noise in the 44.1k/48kHz. + data for showing a dot if it is "studio/artist approved" (which proves nothing, as Neil Youngs mqa were approved but NOT by him !) + the original sample rate of the PCM (the master) they created it from ... the number you see on your DAC ! This is NOT the playback sample rate; ALL MQAs play upsampled to the max ! If your dac supports 384kHz then playback = ALWAYS 352.8kHz or 384kHz. Even for 44.1k MQAs: (you see 44.1k you hear 352.8k) ! If your dac supports 96kHz only then playback = ALWAYS 88.2kHz or 96kHz. Even for 352.8k MQAs; (you see 352.8k you hear 88.2k) >> Conclusion 3: What you see on the DAC is NOT what you get. MQA says they are "deblurring" the music. When they upsample, restore the mangled higher frequencies (those estimates). But when the upsampling is done, MQA is using a minimum phase filter which causes the higher frequencies to shift non-linear. This creates blur. Unfortunately you cannot select another filter on your DAC as they baked it in the MQA. >> Conclusion 4: MQA damages the high frequencies. >> Conclusion 5: You cannot select another filter. (*) Now, after doing all these lossy things, they dare to call it "MASTER". An MQA is not a master, the original PCM they used to create the MQA from is the master. What happens when you do DSP corrections in roon with an MQA... file... this is really horrible : => they upsample x2 from 44.1/48k to 88.2/96k => they extract the MQA data stream => they do DSP with the damaged audio signal => they reinstall the MQA data stream ... damaging that audio signal even more => they upsample some more + non-linear filter (and you need the very expensive Roon software for this, it doesn't work with software that didn't pay for implementing MQA) >> (6) MQA limits DSP possibilities, >> (7) you cannot even change volume from your laptop or the MQA signal is lost. >> (8) MQA DACs have NO digital outputs, only analogue ones. You cannot further process it digitally! ... etc etc... Bandwidth problems? We stream 4K these days with Netflix! ==> WE DON'T NEED MQA; MQA Solves problems that are not there.
In MQA, a ton of frequencies just above 20k are sucked out, never to see the light of day again. And, although we can’t hear those frequencies by themselves, we can hear the way inclusion or exclusion of those frequencies affects those frequencies we can here.
Thanks Paul I always found CD Quality to be better then MQA. MQA always seemed to missing something. Also switched to Quobz from Tidal since Tidal is converting everything to MQA. I have not heard DSD because if its limited availability. I hope some day it becomes more mainstream.
All MQA to date has been Lossy Lossless > lossy Besides the lossy issues, license issues, secret tech issues, extra costs to encode or include in DACs, etc, I like my music on physical media I own, not rent Vinyl, CD, DVD, BluRay, its all good. Buy used, resell, gift, etc
@@stefdriver The Lossy HiRes would only be better if it was sourced from a true high-res master (anything higher than 16bit 44.1khz). The problem as GoldenSound's video points out is that the majority of MQA releases are upscaled from 44.1khz; a process that does not add any more information to the audio. They then take the audio (which is effectively the same as a lossless CD) and encode it lossily, making it worse than a lossless CD. There's also the audible noise and other artifacts observed by GoldenSound's test.
@@broom441 I wouldn’t say that majority of MQA releases are upscaled. Why would they when HiRes masters are available to them just like other studios? I would say this has uncovered some incompetence or corruption at Tidal because they are not allowing original 44k tracks through when the user has not enabled MQA. That is a deployment error and can be fixed, not a fault of the MQA format. As for noise and artifacts, I guess that happens when you put torture test tones through an algorithm designed for real music and the human brain. I can assure you if noise was audible under normal use it would have been discovered long ago, before even the Meridian demo I attended back in 2016 at the Montreal show, where the press gallery got to witness the best sound I have ever heard.
I like to feed my DAC with the bit perfect PCM data of the master file. Amazon HD Music streams CD or better quality PCM (some are 192kHz 24 bits) and with 60+ million music tracks, it does what I could ever have dreamed about in the past. Yes, Paul is right that MQA is a lossy compression format. With a modern IP connection, don't bother with lossy formats if you are audiophile.
@@hurkamur1 Yes, FLAC is a compression format, but it is lossless. While I think @ThinkingBetter is a bit confused regarding "modern IP connection", the sentiment is there: Most ...audiophiles have high-speed broadband internet access. However, for the streaming companies (Amazon, Qobuz, Tidal, etc.), *THEY* have to worry about their bandwidth usage. So, if there's a compression library that offers "near lossless" quality with a higher compression ratio (that saves them money on bandwidth), those streaming companies will likely use it. And, Amazon HD will stream FLAC as well as hi-res PCM (depending on the source).
@@xiaobaozhaAnd probably you are down to perhaps 18 bits of resolution (108dB) when you include the analog parts of your system. Yes, modern audio streaming e.g. Amazon HD Music is already at a quality (bit perfect FLAC) where you are not limited by the service itself. DSD is not meaningful to me cause I prefer more modern setups with active cross-over and EQ in DSP. Besides, I don't believe anything above Amazon HD Music's best tracks with 192kHz 24 bits is meaningful anyway.
No, they don't. You have to do a blind test, level matched blind test between two known identical masters. When those requirements are met, absolutely no one has been able to say which is which.
@@trueaudiofiles8453 no I can't be certain of any of that, to each his own I prefer DSD and that is all there is to it. You may prefer MQA and that's cool.
Paul - I don’t always agree with you but I’d like to thank you for your candor on this subject. Speaking truth to the audiophile community and plain old music lovers in general on this subject will aid many in cost savings as I see so many budding audiophiles debating on whether to spend the extra money on MQA enabled gear. This hobby is already expensive enough. MQA may be somewhat controversial but I could not care less. However, what I do care about are facts and the facts about MQA are in no matter what the MQA marketing team or MQA supporters say. - MQA is compressed - MQA is indeed not lossless FLAC, DSD, and CD quality are all quite excellent. I’m a CD listener myself as I just love a great transport and have zero desire to be tethered to a laptop, PC, etc. I love LPs too just for the ritual of listening. It doesn’t surprise me that Neil Young pulled his music from TIDAL stating the following and I quote... “TIDAL is calling their files of my songs Masters. But TIDAL’s MQA files are not my masters,” he wrote. “If TIDAL referred to their titles as TIDAL MASTERS, I would have no problem, but they don’t. … I had my music removed from that platform.” The fact that TIDAL are misrepresenting the artist’s music as something that it is not is not only disingenuous, it’s a lie and flat out wrong. And if TIDAL is doing that to a 2 time Hall of Fame artist who else’s music is undergoing the same manipulation. More than a little disturbing.
Wholeheartedly agree, Paul. This is obviously on me, and sorry for being direct here: we've seen Mr. John Atkinson of Stereophile, the high priest and über-cathedral of audiophilia that so many bow to, elaborate in technical terms on MQA's supposed "elegance" (to which Charles Hansen of Ayre would no doubt have opposed, also in sonic terms - had he lived), yet it's an extra process, lossy at that, that has a lot more theory to it than sonic equivalence. It also follows one needs specific hardware components that supports the final "authentication" step of MQA to have every box ticked in a scheme that sells a lossy format like it it was the 2nd coming. There's nothing like an air of puff exclusivity to lure its prey, like them Harvard clubs. Why this rant and blunt tone? Because the way MQA has seen advertising and further endorsement from the likes of earlier mentioned Stereophile and its core scribes, from my chair, is a subtle form of bullying; when the authority on measurements says it holds water, it holds water, and it then becomes the master approval that no one in their right (intimidated) mind would dare counter and keep from widespread implementation. Unless of course we're simply using our ears and a bit of common sense, and call the whole endeavor by its right name (that I'll avoid in the name instead of decency). To my ears MQA files sound overly smoothed and takes away a natural edge of music. Glossed over, if you will, and more bottleneck-ey. Thank you, Paul, for putting it more eloquently than I was able to.
Since you wrote this the YT channel Goldensound managed to upload music files to Tidal to measure for himself how they were altered. Big artifacts.... you might be interested in his analysis, which agrees with your views.
Thank you for your sincerity and explaining the reality of MQA, it is a good idea but not the best sound in the world of digital audio. I'm not a fan of MQA either, but the marketing work has made people look to listen to music with poorer sound quality. I totally agree with you, there are already high quality and open digital formats. You are an integral and sincere person, you generate trust and make this audio industry great. Thank you
I have about 30 SACD classical discs - all classical. I play them on a four channel SACD system. They're really good. I've got a copy of the Matthew Passion (that was originally done with two choirs at opposite ends of Bach's large Church in Leipzig) and it has a depth that's just jaw dropping.
Conducted Rene Jacobs: RIAS Kammerchor and Akademie fur Alte Musik Berlin. Harmonia Mundi. Includes "bonus" DVD on the "Making" of the performance. Amazon stocks it at $26 plus $4 shipping. Arkiv has it on backorder. Total thumbs up if your system supports SACD. It's a hybrid so it's great if you don't have SACD. Jacobs also did a St. John Passion with the same crowd. BTW: Jacobs does not agree with the current fashion of "one voice per part."
The bigger issue here that everyone is forgetting is MQA's long term goal is to have streaming platforms only one file for all uses, eradiating straight industry standard PCM for the consumer to choose from, so you have to buy into MQA to get the "better" sound if not you are left with a file with additional noise and lower quality
MQA was the great white hope for the future of audiophile recordings - and was actually just a load of overblown hype. I bought Howard Shore's magnificent Complete Lord of the Rings scores on MQA, having already owned them on DVD and Blu-Ray audio, with accompanying CDs, and as 24bit/48khz hi res downloads from Qobuz. The MQA versions are *by far* the worst sounding of the lot - I had to check to make sure I hadn't somehow chosen mp3 playback, but nope, it was clearly showing the MQA badge whilst playing. Interestingly, the MQA versions that I bought from 7Digital are no longer available, and have been replaced with the FLAC 24/48 versions elsewhere - and MQA seems to have disappeared from most hi res audio download sites - it's dead in the water, and has been shown to be style over substance.
Anyone who understands the principles of the digital sound encode/decode recording process has questioned MQA’s claims from the outset. MQA is totally unnecessary as the internet is capable of streaming 4K video , the bandwidth required for a 192K FLAC stream is easily available. As stated by at least one other equipment manufacturer MQA is just an attempt to introduce a DRM process. Unfortunately certain areas of the traditional ‘HI-FI’ media are apparently unwilling to question MQA’s provenance. Props to Paul for expressing his position on the matter of MQA.
Similar to what Paul says, I like the concept of MQA, and I think of it similar to any video streaming service. All those 4k streams you see on Netflix (or even RU-vid) are made possible by compression, whether it be MPEG, HEVC, or whatever flavor you like. I’ve done had to head comparisons of content available via streamer and the best Blu-ray media I can play. There is a visible loss in quality when compared to the disc, but I think it’s acceptable, and 4k streamed content still looks better than upscale dvd. Yes, DSD offers a higher range of fidelity, but it requires quite a few more bits per song than compared to tidal. And in my data capped, mobile data plan centric life, I think MQA is an acceptable compromise. I used to think compression was a sacrilegious thing, but with capacity constraints, it allows you to enjoy “higher quality” contents rather than not being able to watch/listen to anything at all.
audio doesnt take up nearly as much space as video. Its the mechanics of MQA that sucks. there are plenty of better compression techniques that will give you better sound and smaller files. The mechanism MQA uses is janky and unnecessary, and only adds cost while killing quality.
Thank you for creating and posting this video. Every time I have a question about audio, somehow I end up getting information from you (and your fans, too). Another question answered!
How would MQA know and be able to assure the chain of equipment used in the recording, mixing and mastering stages? Some of us knows the answer to that. (DSD is also worth more discussion though.)
I’d never heard of MQA and I was scratching my head thinking…how does a codec represented in a mixed down track, composed of many tracks, (some of which were sent through a round robin of converters for external processing, and often multiple times) document /compensate for ADA/DAC conversions? That would be a miracle of the highest order
I want my MQA, DSD, SACD, THX, ATMOS, DTS, ....and what ever other initials will make the front face of my gear look more impressive🎸just like racing stickers add more power 🤫 Stamp them on the damn box too Paul.💰
Holy crap... NO! I hope this was sarcastic :P The less logos and stickers the better. I hate when manufactures sticks alot of shiny ugly stickers on that I need to remove and in some cases even wash away the sticky glue. Worst thing I see on equipment :P
@oh ok That's what I thought😅 But I did get a little uncertain since some people actually like the stickers😅 Since you mentioned "THX" it reminded me of a couple of days ago I heard someone claim THX was a quality stamp and he looked for the branding on speakers etc because of this😂 I asked how he could claim this when you can get cheap and crappy PC speakers with THX logo on them😅 Alot of exuses followed...
@oh ok Yeah, that sums it up pretty well..👍 The last thing I care about is a THX logo😅 I know the products I get can easy handle the THX certification but they just don't waste money on doing it.
Why is MQA bad? Many reasons: 1) MQA incurs an additional cost to you. You are paying for the licensing fees that are tacked on to products to get MQA support, and at every other step in the process. A good post from the manufacturer Linn is available here: www.linn.co.uk/blog/mqa-is-bad-for-music 2) MQA restricts what manufacturers can do with their own products. Schiit has spoken openly in part about this here: www.schiit.com/news/news/why-we-wont-be-supporting-mqa MQA requires manufacturers to hand over not only extensive information about their product design to MQA in order to get certified, but also a significant amount of actual CONTROL over the design too. MQA gets to have a say about the hardware and filters that can/can't be used. For instance forcing ifi to remove their custom filter options when MQA was added. 3) MQA is NOT sourced from a high-res master. It is NOT higher resolution than normal FLAC. MQA creates files however they damn well please. Artist Neil Young actually removed his music from Tidal in protest because he provided tidal with standard 16 bit / 44.1khz masters, and suddenly, tidal made available "HiRes MQA" versions of his music. Most MQA is simply upsampled versions of the original. neilyoungarchives.com/news/1/article?id=Tidal-Misleading-Listeners Tidal's master is a degredation of the original to make it fit in a box that collects royalties. That money ultimately is paid by listeners, I am not behind it. I am out of there. Gone. My masters are the original. 4) MQA prevents you from obtaining native HiRes music. Sometimes, MQA DOES work with artists to get an actual higher than 44.1khz master. BUT, the issue is, as part of this contract, they require the artist NOT to provide a native high-res version anywhere else. This is both so that you HAVE to use MQA if you want it, and also so that you cannot do any objective comparisons between a native and MQA file. This means once an MQA release is available, any native 192khz versions on qobuz etc will go poof. They are monopolising HiRes audio. Additionally, they use these alternate masters to provide the illusion that MQA sounds better. A large portion of music, if you switch to the MQA version and it sounds better, its nothing to do with MQA itself, its simply that they are using a different master, its literally a different source file. Its incredibly manipulative. 5) There is ZERO proof of any of MQA's claims. There is absolutely zero evidence to support any of their marketing, claims that they can fit 24 bit 192khz content into a 16 bit 44.1khz file, and in fact, all objective evidence and testing so far conclude that MQA's claims don't make sense. All testing so far shows that MQA is nothing more than a minimum phase upsampling filter, which is arguably WORSE than a linear phase filter that most decent DACs or upsampling players will use. MQA is 100% closed-source, and they go to great lengths to make it impossible to directly compare files that have not been altered. 6) MQA is actually probably worse than native playback. MQA makes it impossible to obtain a "normal" and MQA version of the same hires file. BUT, Stereophile did manage to convince them to send an MQA encoded single-impulse file. Their testing showed three things: - Playing back an MQA encoded file on a non-MQA dac caused issues, and created an asymmetric impulse response. - Playing it back on an MQA capable dac, it was minimum phase, not linear. - Playing back a NORMAL, non-MQA encoded impulse response file, with MQA turned on on the DAC, produced an IDENTICAL result to the MQA file, all but proving that MQA is nothing more than a basic minimum-phase upsampling filter, and absolutely nothing to do with the source file. www.stereophile.com/content/mqa-tested-part-1 There is significant evidence from multiple third party sources to show that MQA has all sorts of problems. archimago.blogspot.com/2018/02/musingsmeasurements-on-blurring-and-why.html TLDR: - Manufacturers have to pay licensing fees to MQA, which makes the products you buy more expensive and costs you money. - Manufacturers have to give up control to MQA, meaning manufacturers are literally prevented from developing some areas of their product. - MQA has provided absolutely zero evidence of any of their claims, makes it all but impossible to test, and any testing that HAS been done shows all sorts of problems - MQA is slowly making it impossible to actually obtain native hires music
A part from any technicalities I do not really see any reason for a lossy compressed format stretching to 44.1KHz while bandwith is becoming more and more available at a cheaper price.
Funny how anyone who knows anything about audio despises MQA, and yet the audiophile market wont shut up about it. Should tell you something about what audiophiles really know about audio....
Hey Paul...love the little vignettes on your channel. It's funny...between Tidal and Qobuz Studio, I find the latter sounds much better and is also much louder signal than Tidal. And in terms of DSD, I am a rabid fan to say the least. So much so thst I painstakingly transferred all my SACD discs and play them on my LG V40 phone (with Final Audio Sonorous X headphones no less!). But it turns out the Android 10 update on the LG phones now converts DSD to PCM for who knows what reason-- no more native playback. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of the format! Therefore I found a version of the phone on Android 9 and I'm fighting to keep it *on* Android 9 so I can have the unmatched pure DSD audio. And yes also I have the Exasound DSD DAC for my home system because that's literally one of the only analog multi-channel components (interfaces with a Conrad Johnson preamp) around! And oh yeah, on the flip side, for a car I finally got an Infiniti model with that 14-speaker studio surround Bose system that plays true MLP DVD-audio discs-- of course the Betamax vs VHS version of SACD. Both have exceptional sounding discs so on that side I'm now rounding up all my old discs from years back because all the best titles are watermarked & only play the original. SACD was eventually "broken"...but DVD-Audio just happens to have the best (insidious?) copy-protection ever created.
"they will tell you that the data you are losing is high frequency stuff that doesn't matter" ....which is exactly why cd's landed at 16 bit/44.1khz in the first place, human hearing cannot perceive past 20khz and the Nyquist Theorem got it right. This is evident today more than ever since modern affordable DAC technology eventually caught up about a decade or so ago.... So please MQA stakeholders, tell me again why I would want to pay a premium for your high res lossy format again? Especially when even your own stance is that you're throwing out the high frequencies that don't matter anyway? lol. oh. the. irony.
It does seem odd to create a method for encoding the frequencies that you can't hear by storing them in the data for the frequencies that you can hear, thereby making the parts you can hear worse.
MQA is a DRM system. Record companies can release high-res tracks without giving consumer the access to lossless digital copy. Last unfolding is done at DAC and you can get it out only in analog.
just like when he said that solid state preamps sound better than tubes, since people have ears, and paul is here to sell, than in a few years time you can find that his "truth" was just another selling point ,and he can change his mind.
Ok great info, so I have tidal with master quality subscription, what streaming service should I be using for the best quality audio? Is there a service that uses DSD?
@@nihilionsaro I don’t want to speak for the poster here but I think it’s the fact that Paul gave his honesty opinion when it could be detrimental to his business. That’s integrity and many people appreciate that whether you agree with his opinion or not.
@@nihilionsaro A special kind of insane is you coming to the conclusion that my "whole" opinion of PS is shaped by the way they feel about MQA. It's just a part of it. But you read into my comments whatever you'd like.
Compared 24 bit flacs and 24 bit MQA audio files and much preferred the depth and tonal color of the flac. I can hear the artifact/distortion that MQA is adding and although others may perceive it as energetic, I found it distracting.
@@yaniv-nos-tubes Good point. In my case it does not make sense. I have opted to use PCM only and store all music as network files without compression. Compression is not required as I have unlimited storage and do not depend on streaming. I am pretty happy with the sound so MQA is not required. I like to get my music dirt cheap by acquiring old CD's and doing a bit perfect rip. The only thing I pay market rate for is the odd Chesky or MA recording for the exceptional quality.
I originally signed up for Tidal for streaming and have not looked back. I am perfectly happy with CD quality but I also listen to MQA with Tidal software doing unfold. I am satisfied, but again i am not a hard core hires guy. From what i heard over the years i sounds better than apple and spotify.
This "deblurring" thing (the reverse engineering thing) is completely bonkers to me. If i got your explanation right they deconvolute the sound of each component of the signal chain in recording, mixing and mastering. They also have to know the exact settings of the preamps, faders etc to do this correctly. Why do they do this? Most audioengineers choose the equipment they work with because they think the sonic signature of the equipment will fit the recording, but they just undo all that? Whats the point of even recording on a console then? Why not just go straight to the pro tools?
Agreed, the recording engineers and the artists create the sound that best fits the intended artistical expression. Reversing to the raw signal that the microphones caught is not what the artists wanted. Furthermore, if the MQA is made from the finished mix, backwards calculations to unmixed signals are literally impossible. I suspect that the claim of the reverse engineering thing is based on a misunderstanding of what MQA actually does. Wikipedia has a good explanation of "Master Quality Authenticated" ("good" as in: an explanation I can understand 😉)
The deblurring is just for the original analog to digital converter that was used and the current DAC that is being used not every component in the chain.
I like how clearly pointed out why certain services embrace MQA - because of BANDWIDTH. Using "lossy-but-not" MQA allows then to save on traffic usage even if its cause customer expenses.
I think its a gimmick. Qobuz smacks tidal on sound quality. Just dont have the library....i prefer qobuz cd quality over a mqa masters. Mqa has to be unfolded multiple times. Its a gimmick 2 me!
@Lassi Kinnunen 81 I agree with you. I think MQA is just snake oil, I have listened some MQA songs which sounded worse than Apple Music. I am just listening to Tidal flac most of the time and try not to think of MQA. And I think others should do the same, it’s just not worth the effort.
Mqa is just a licensing fee. Marketing 101. It does not sound better than normal pcm. All im saying. Qobuz is my preference. If the song isnt on there ill use tidal. Alot of the sound quality has to do with the streaming service and Qobuz has a better sounding streaming service
@@lancekluemper3708 I agree on the MQA part. I wish we had the option not to pay for it, but problem is we don’t have other choice and don’t want to pay two subscriptions.
Tell me if I'm wrong, MQA cannot be transported over HDMI cables so all the high end soundbars can't take advantage of the cd's that are being released. So maybe you are great a better Redbook quality because of the better material.
Just ask Neil Young - he specifically pulled his albums out of Tidal because they were streaming his albums in MQA when originally he only ever provided them with a CD quality format in the first place. Now that’s some dodgy shit! I’ve since cancelled my Tidal subscription
I'm going to go out on a limb and put the cat amongst the pigeons: - I like MQA. I'm not ultra high-end in my setup, far from it, but I feel like it puts meat on the bones, particularly in the bass. Who knows, if I listen to DSD it may blow my mind.
Tidal started to force people into MQA by replacing redbook albums with MQA versions. Makes sense for them as they only have to list every record once and unfold to the desired quality. That's what made me switch to Qobuz. High quality pcm stream up to 24/192. No MQA bullshit. DSD indeed is superior but I am still waiting for a streaming service that supports DSD...
Ive done exactly the same. Mqa is very clearly inferior to the genuine unlossy flac.. With roon supporting qobuz AND tidal, its pretty easy to switch between the two and the difference is night and day for me... Mqa sounds worse every time. Ive also found that redbook 16 44 files sound better via qobuz, and much more like a locally stored version, which was unexpected, but appears to be an experience shared by many who have made the switch.
So MP3 is compressed and lossy, MQA uses compression but huge files are compressed down to very large files. So the music file ends up being as large as an original CD file but contains more data than the original CD file. So if we were to compare MQA to the Master file, then yes it's lossy but compared to a CD file it will give you more musical data. So the good part is if your ears and your audio system has enough resolution to even hear an improvement in CD file then MQA should be a big improvement for you. Most music sounds fantastic just using CD quality. For many the real improvement in sound comes from the music being mastered well in the first place. MQA is just a bonus probably way better than most people and the audio systems can resolve. At least that's my opinion. ;)
Thank you, Paul, for being honest about MQA. As for DSD (and your enthusiasm): As you well know, DSD uses a process called 'Noise-Shaping' (a sort of a negative bias around the DAC chip), without which, DSD's dynamic range is only 6dB! With the process, the figure increases to about 60dB (about the same as a Vinyl record). BUT - the process introduces a lot of High-Frequency noise (above 20KHz), which, supposedly, we can't hear, but, our amps (and speakers) do reproduce it, and the sonic result suffers considerably! (For that matter, I don't believe that DSD256 or 512 solve this problem).
By that time there will be a “better” format and some other person will classify it as lossy or whatever. Let’s not chase our tails, Just enjoy the music, now because you may be half deaf or half dead by then.
They won't ever stream DSD. It's too data intensive, cant ve digitally volume controlled (which creates compatibility issues), and oh... iT'S A DEAD FORMAT.
A format that makes it as difficult as possible for ordinary folk like us to objectively test is a format that isn't worth any attention. Yes, MP3 and AAC do have patents, and encoders are licensed (or were in the case of MP3, which is now patent free), but at least they were available.
As much as i like dsd/sacd, only a handful does it. Im good with my cds for now and if in 5-10 years dsd does make it to a wide range of music, ill jump right in.
The 'a' is for authenticated - I believe Paul - at least that's what I've been telling my customers for years.....I don't like it (mqa) Some of it sounds odd. Some of it is interesting. Flac and dsd.... And of course analogue.
it's better that you tell your customers to use their ears ,and judge for themselves. repeating paul might lead you to second hand lying. what do you tell them when they ask to replace the stock russian vacuum tubes in their 6k preamp? he has some videos on that as well.
Back in the early days of MQA I bought a bluesound streamer to use MQA. Compared Tidal to Spotify and, to my shock, preferred completely lossy Spotify in 4 out of 5 cases to 24/192 MQA. What!? But that aside, most digital masters, even high-res ones, are still level compressed 'for digital audio', something that reasonably can't be done for vinyl. Now I do agree that there's many bad vinyl pressings around these days, yet I decided that my course of action was going to be to digitize every single record I own in 24/192 through a Tascam DA3000 sound recorder. They are all digital now, and now begins the years long track of cutting them up into pieces, titling them, the lot. It's ridiculous, the digital format is so ready for amazing sound, yet the studio engineers just throw their brick walled mixes onto it.
To my ears, MQA lies between MP3 and Redbook CD. That’s why I gave up Tidal and went back to Qobuz. Now, I see some MQA titles starting to appear on Qobuz. Grrrrrrrr!!
@@doowopper1951 haven't compared to cd as I am very susceptible to the lack of sample rate, so I never took 16/44 serious. The fact that it's not better than Spotify here was shocking, and makes your findings quite believable :D
For me, it depends on how the music has been mastered in the sound studio together with my sound equipment in my room, according to my personal sense of taste. Therefore, I have personally noticed that some songs I prefer in 16/44.1 but with others I prefer in 24/88 or 24/96. But in general I prefer in 16/44.1. DSD? Yes, it will be something of the same as mentioned above. There is no right or wrong answer here.
Having created my own FLAC files direct from CDs I purchased, versus the same track on MQA...the MQA wins in quality. So, it may be lossless, but it certainly sounds better than 44.1 CD-quality FLAC.
DSD is better than MQA. There is no question about it. MQA / MQA CD is becoming more popular. That's also true. Thanks to Tidal. MQA is better than CD ? Now this is the million dollar question.
I’m so glad that there is now proof the MQA is not what it claims to be and what I was very able to hear. Now Tidal better put back the flac versions of music or pay us back for paying the highest price loss less options when they only provide MQA - not loss less now evident by there own omission.
Qobuz has never used MQA. I would be interested in the results if you were able to compare Hi-Rez from Qobuz to Tidal MQA, since many of the titles are common to both. I’m certainly on the side of Qobuz’ approach.
I once heard the claim that MQA sounds better than the uncompressed version. The explanation was somewhat technical and difficult to follow, but I thought that if the claim were true then why not stop using (inferior sounding) uncompressed files?
I did same but Amazon software sucks. The desktop app cannot stream higher than 24/48 via USB. Was working fine under Tidal but more expensive. No Qobuz in Canada.
@@stefdriver Yiu definitely can stream beyond 24/48. Make sure you device setting in windows are set correctly. I know Android has a 24/48 max limitation, but your windows PC should be able more go beyond that. I have at 24/192 for my DAC. Might be a limitation of your DAC.
@@RussellKasem I will try again but there was a huge thread on Amazon support about this problem. I was doing 96k with Tidal before I cancelled it. Bloody Amazon defines 24/48 as ULTRA HD so they can get away with it!
@@RussellKasem I figured it out: their so called Exclusive Mode is fake. It uses the default sampling rate for the device set in the OS and doesn’t take over the port and automatically adjust the rate. I increased my default rate in Windows for my USB device to 192k and it now plays everything at 192k LOL. They haven't implemented ASIO so it is not bit perfect.
You made some good points Paul with DSD, but my enjoyment come from working within the limitations of analog magnetic tape. Manly in designing better electronic circuits for record and playback, alongside looking at ways to improve this format in the 2020's.
Qobuz Hi-res is FLAC 24bit/192Khz. Why not make a raw music format with all recorded tracks separately. There is a mix, but one that can be user adjusted to their taste and their playback chain.
There are plenty of reasons why they won’t do that. I have always wanted this but there are over 100 reasons as to why they won’t do it. Most of them being about money or some other nonsense.
Hi Paul, as far as I know, you've never made a dac that fully unpacks the MQA signal before handing it off to an amplifier. Am I confused? It would be great to hear from you on this one! I own and love your Sprout amplifier!
paul's "mqa" dac was just like the tube vs solid state test, a 6 year old with ears can tell the difference in 20 seconds but paul has to "prove" it in his scientific way to get the result that he aimed for, than he uses the case as a selling point.
So I'm new to MQA etc but have worked in broadcast technology for 20 years and have a degree in sound engineering. I first smelt a funny smell when on a free tidal trial and there were albums listed as 'MQA' or 'HD', content where I know the studios these were recorded in and niche content that has little commercial value in remixing. Same as the video industry where were getting UHD 'enhanced' content that is still a HD master just given more bit rate on a larger raster. Golden sounds video was pretty methodical, and this video backs up that it's a lesson in marketing > product.
Dang! I just got tidal hifi with MQA and I love the sound. Maybe it's since i was bluetoothing RU-vid to my stereo before. I'll accept it for what it is
ive been using mqa more than 5 years now, paul is the master of snake oil/science project bullshit. dsd is not bad ,but mqa sounds softer without losing clarity so most prefer mqa after a comparison but some people trust paul's bullshit more than their own ears...
@@yaniv-nos-tubes why is softer better? More accurate to the original master should be the goal. I would also argue that it is pretty much split down the middle with the people I know as to which tech sounds better.
@@yaniv-nos-tubes Good point. I don't think Paul is deliberately misleading though- having said that the dude has a dog in the fight, and if you use critical thinking, you usually can decipher a sales pitch in his videos- he wants to increase his sales and there is no harm in that, but yes, you have to wade through an implicit bias.
@@trueaudiofiles8453 Well I would say more musical rather than "softer". Same when you listen to an LP on a good set up there is a "softer" analogue type of a sound more round and rich harmonically than digital gear which can sound more "etched". Having said that, I find my Meridian gear with Jeff Rowland a nice balance.
Nice explanation. Good reasoning. Very glad your not a fan of MQA and hope you drop your licensing of it. Consumers should not be listened to on this because we have been lied to by the MQA mafia. Keep educating consumers - and explain clearly as you have here to your customers why you don't support it. That is much better than licensing it.
